by cedars 83 Replies latest jw friends
Yes they count members differently that is the whole point, and the measure JW use is stricter than most other churches.
The decline of churches in the UK is very pronounced, it does not matter what measure you use. Church attendance is down something like 50% over the last 30 years, whereas JW publishers and attendance at the memorial have nearly doubled. You don't need to have an exactly equivalent measure to see they the trends are radically different.
Let's hold our horses because trends in the past few years with the Watchtower's numbers show a slowing down with baptisms reliably shrinking and the number of years it takes average numbers of publishers to pass peak numbers grows longer. It will be interesting to see how many attended this year's memorial. I guess too we'll continue to get anecdotal reports that average numbers attending meetings during the week get lower and lower. Immigrant language congregations appear to buck trends in western countries.
Yes, numbers fascinate and inspire - and given they are near the end of yet another service year - September - we'll see in the next 3 to 4 months.
Maybe more than 20 million attended the memorial this year for the first time.
Here are worldwide numbers of baptisms and memorial attendance figures. My lovely horse is being "held": Steady boy! Sorry for the elongated table - it was taken from an excel spreadsheet that was not elongated when pasted.
YEAR | BAPTISMS | MEMORIAL |
ATTENDANCE | ||
2002 | 265,469 | 15,597,746 |
2006 | 248,327 | 16,675,113 |
2010 | 294,368 | 18,706,895 |
2011 | 263,131 | 19,374,737 |
2012 | 268,777 | 19,013,343 |
As any 101 statistics student would tell you Jeffro percentages are very misleading indicators of comparative growth over time. For example in a group of 2 it takes just another 2 to achieve 100% growth. But in a group of 2,000 it requires 2,000 more to achieve that. This is one of the reasons why additional measures are used such as ratios of witnesses to a country's population. That said, year-by-year percentages can be sound indicators of growth as can comparing totals over time such as total numbers baptized across the decades.
steve2:
As any 101 statistics student would tell you Jeffro percentages are very misleading indicators of comparative growth over time. For example in a group of 2 it takes just another 2 to achieve 100% growth. But in a group of 2,000 it requires 2,000 more to achieve that. This is one of the reasons why additional measures are used such as ratios of witnesses to a country's population.
Sigh. We're not talking about very small numbers. And you already know, or should reasonably know, that ratios to population are also increasing in most developed countries.
That said, year-by-year percentages can be sound indicators of growth
You mean, like the ones I provided?
The only viable way to determine accurately how many active members there are is:
1. Pick ONE month in a year. Only ONE month. This month should be the same month every year, consistingly. (This is actually the methodology adopted by the census. They take a "snapshot" of ONE day.) Not the peak month in a year, but the same month every year. I would suggest May, since it's not overly affected yet by school holidays and the Memorial "fever" is gone, and the campaign for the DC still hasn't started.
2. Then, measure in that month how many have reported field service.
3. From that figure, determine:
Growth rate (positive or negative) since same month the previous year.
How many of those who reported are baptized. Again, measure that igure against last year's figure.
How many in that congregation are irregular that month.
How many in the congregation are inactive in that month.
Percentage of baptized active members versus population
Percentage of active publishers versus population.
Only when you have the "snapshot approach" you can get accurate results.
PS. Been sick, haven't been able to follow up or participate much lately.
Eden
You mean, like the ones I provided?
Jeffro, you are a patient poster - which I do appreciate.
In answer to your question, yes - but you also need to provide numerical context by showing the absolute numbers next to the percentages.
In my previous post, I needed to have specified that percentages are fine provided they have a literal numerical context - otherwise readers have no way of knowing whether the 50% increase say in 1956 (to conjure up an imaginary example) represents a relatively small increase (given the small total number for the previous year) or a significantly large numerical increase compared with the previous year. Total numbers 'anchor' the percentages - and this is precisely what the Watchtower's annualar average number of publishers provides: Total literal number and the percentage change over the previous year. Does that now make sense?
